"We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell." -- Molly Ivins

Saturday, January 7

On Israel, Iran and the Succession ...

Ariel Sharon is a dead man still breathing, his era haspassed, and a new day is coming for Israel. That soundscallous, I suspect, but let's be clear - I hope Sharoncan recover but the prognosis is terrible. I'm a realist,and it would appear that new (old) leadership willcome to the fore.

His deputy, Ehud Olmert, is a likable man according toreports, and experienced, but without Sharon's nationalstature and probably unlikely to take Sharon's newparty Kadima to victory in the upcoming elections, whichas I recall are to occur in either February or March. Eventhough Olmert is the apparent heir apparent for Sharon,this writer believes he'll get swept away during the nextelection cycle in Israel.

It would seem at this distance that the leading candidatesto replace Sharon in the long term are two previous PrimeMinisters, Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu. Lookingthem up today, Peres had announced a month ago that hewas leaving his forty year allegiance with the Labor partyto join Sharon's Kadima effort. With Sharon's impendingdemise, will that committment stay in place? Netanyahuhas stated in recent weeks that he believes Israel ought toattack Iran before Iran gains nuclear weapons capability,an idea which is also (rumored to be) being noised aboutby Washington, if one can believe the press in Germany(at the least, the American press has seemingly not pickedup on this).

One would suggest that _some_ kind of peace processwould appear to be more likely if Peres is elected (albeitnebulous, it's not at all clear what Peres would do ifelected and assuming he's even running), and that thepossibility of an ugly war is more likely in the Netanyahucase. However, in neither case is it at all clear whatIsrael's long term policy would be, or how the generalelectorate of Israel will react to the death of Sharon, orwhat Sharon's passing from the scene will mean interms of Israel's relationship with Mahmoud Abbas'embattled Palestinian organization, or the potential forHamas to win the (scheduled for 25 January) Palestinianelections which may or may not occur at month's end.

Abbas may be willing to negotiate with Israel, but onesuspects the alleged terrorist organization Hamas willnot be so willing and that doesn't even begin to addressall the other outfits plying their terrorist ways in thePalestinian territories, such as Hezbollah. If Fatah hada bad name for terroristic behavior Hamas has a worseone. Either candidate will have to deal with whoeverwins the Palestinian elections, assuming that they areeven held (which looks less likely, especially if Sharondies any time soon, which, unfortunately, does looklikely).

Something has to give as far as the Palestinian situationis concerned, and preemptive war with Iran will _not_solve that problem, in fact it may create a bigger one. Amember of POLITICS suggested the other day that Iranhad to be taken out before it became a nuclear power, andsuggested a "cost-benefit analysis"made it clear that morebenefit than cost would occur from such attacks. I surmisethat war with Iran will reverberate badly for both Israeland the United States (Israel will not make such attacksunless they have the backing of the Bush administration,and I believe that backing already exists).

Sharon's probable demise opens up a seeming black holeof bad choices to be made by all parties concerned nomatter who ends up succeeding the dying Prime Minister.I'm sure the millenarists and neo-cons are hopingIsraeldoes go to war, but one suspects that it will be _at least_a two-front conflict. Does anyone really expect thePalestinians to be quiescent while Israel goes at Iran?Does_anyone_ see the long-term potential repurcussionsto such a conflict? One's immediate guess is no. I alsosuspect that the cost-benefit analysis is skewed, andthat the cost will be much higher than anyone guesses.

One reason is that the chances are better than even thatif such a conflict unfolds (and I would say the odds of ithappening are about 5-1 right now), the world may seethe first use of some kind of nuclear weapon since 1945,and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Does anyonerealistically looking at this scenario really believe themullahs in Iran will be toppled if Tehran is attacked?Iran has 63 million people, Israel has about six million,and Iran will not take an attack lying down. Theirpopulace will rally to the government if Israel goes towar. They are fairly heavily armed, and thoughnot as good as Israel militarily, they will fight back, aswill organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and thedeath toll will be bad.

Peace seems farther away than ever, and all becausean overweight man in his seventies is dying in aJerusalem hospital. Sharon's family and his countryhave all my sympathy, the road ahead looks prettydamned rocky when he finally passes from the scene. VMS